Elon Musk may have personally used AI to rip off a Blade Runner 2049 image for a Tesla cybercab event after producers rejected any association between their iconic sci-fi movie and Musk or any of his companies.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, lawyers for Alcon Entertainment—exclusive rightsholder of the 2017 Blade Runner 2049 movie—accused Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) of conspiring with Musk and Tesla to steal the image and infringe Alcon’s copyright to benefit financially off the brand association.

Alcon said it would never allow Tesla to exploit its Blade Runner film, so “although the information given was sparse, Alcon learned enough information for Alcon’s co-CEOs to consider the proposal and firmly reject it, which they did.” Specifically, Alcon denied any affiliation—express or implied—between Tesla’s cybercab and Blade Runner 2049.

“Musk has become an increasingly vocal, overtly political, highly polarizing figure globally, and especially in Hollywood,” Alcon’s complaint said. If Hollywood perceived an affiliation with Musk and Tesla, the complaint said, the company risked alienating not just other car brands currently weighing partnerships on the Blade Runner 2099 TV series Alcon has in the works, but also potentially losing access to top Hollywood talent for their films.

The “Hollywood talent pool market generally is less likely to deal with Alcon, or parts of the market may be, if they believe or are confused as to whether, Alcon has an affiliation with Tesla or Musk,” the complaint said.

Musk, the lawsuit said, is “problematic,” and “any prudent brand considering any Tesla partnership has to take Musk’s massively amplified, highly politicized, capricious and arbitrary behavior, which sometimes veers into hate speech, into account.”

If Tesla and WBD are found to have violated copyright and false representation laws, that potentially puts both companies on the hook for damages that cover not just copyright fines but also Alcon’s lost profits and reputation damage after the alleged “massive economic theft.”

  • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 minutes ago

    Musk sucks but this lawsuit is bullshit, “no you can’t have a picture of a guy in a trenchcoat with a sandstorm in the distance, we completely own that idea.”

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I really like there is now a legal definition Alcon has put together that any association of Musk with a brand is a risk to the brand.

    • shoulderoforion@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This is the only way responsible corporate governance should be treating and referring to Musk, and yet so many corporations keeps an ongoing presence on X regardless of the fascist trash that is it’s mouthpiece

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 hours ago

      He can’t. He’s not actually a visionary. But he has enough fanbois that he’s shielded from that reality.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 hours ago

      He literally is making his own dystopia. It’s one where shitty dumb billionaires destroy centuries of successful democracy with good old fashion uncreative corpuption. We all get to live in it. Well except maybe immigrants, they’ll be shipped out somewhere else.

    • BlackLaZoR@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There’s literally not as single common thing these images share. Afaik noone has monopoly on orange filter

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        One could argue it’s an uncreative derivative work not subject to a fair use exemption, and actively used in commerce to make money for Musk, while simultaneously it damages the Blade Runner brand if, as claimed, other car companies assume Tesla and BR have a relationship, or the BR brand is inextricably linked to Tesla and Musk. The fact that Tesla and WBD hurriedly sought a copyright clearance, once Tesla realized WBD didn’t have all the necessary rights, doesn’t speak well for Tesla’s position, nor does the fact that Musk referenced Blade Runner at least twice in his presentation.

    • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The producers think the image was likely generated—“even possibly by Musk himself”—by “asking an AI image generation engine to make ‘an image from the K surveying ruined Las Vegas sequence of Blade Runner 2049,’ or some closely equivalent input direction,” the lawsuit said.

      In my opinion, I hope that this lawsuit fails. I know that the movie industry already follows similar practices to what Musk has done. If a studio goes to a certain musician and the price is too high to include their music in the show, they’ll go to a different artist and ask them to create a song that sounds like the song that they originally wanted.

      If this lawsuit succeeds it’s going to open the door for them to sue anyone that makes art that’s remotely close to their copyrighted work. All they will need to do is claim that it “might have been created by AI with a prompt specifying our work” without actually having to have any proof beforehand.

      • lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yeah, don’t know what to think. Is this closer to copying a melody from a certain ballad or using the same chords that no-one owns and have been reused through decades to write a ballad… 🤔

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They have an obligation to at least attempt to defend their copyright or risk losing it through inaction.

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        This is a bit different, in that it’s not a trademark claim, but rather a copyright claim. They’re saying that the still isn’t meaningfully trying to be anything other than a Blade Runner still, and Musk’s use is not protected by any sort of Fair Use. There would likely be a statue of limitations or something for the specific cause of action, but you can’t lose copyright the same way you can a trademark.

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Rich entitlement. It’s not enough to be comfortable and have the capacity to play for the rest of your life, you have to bulldoze through others because you feel entitled to their stuff too.

  • penquin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Rich people can pay their way out of crime in the America American “justice” system, so this won’t do anything to Elon Schmuck.

    • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      You realize that this is a civil lawsuit right?

      The only punitive action that can be taken, is monetary damages.

      Unless you think that private entities, such as Alcon, should be allowed to privately prosecute criminal cases, with criminal penalties such as jail time…?

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      They would not be the owners otherwise. This is PoliSci 101 really but we got so many more to get to this point.